Minimum Fluidization Velocity of a Three-Phase Conical Fluidized Bed in Comparison to a Cylindrical Fluidized Bed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrodynamic characteristics of a gas−liquid−solid conical fluidized bed were studied and compared with both liquid−solid conical beds and three-phase cylindrical fluidized beds. The effect of bubbles on particle mixing, pressure drop, and minimum fluidization velocity were discussed. Minimum fluidization velocities predicted by modified Ergun equation which accounts for the variation of the cross-sectional area with the bed height were found to be in good agreement with the liquid−solid conical fluidized bed data. The models of Song et al. [ Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1989, 67, 265] and Zhang et al. [ Power Tech. 1998, 100, 113; PhD. Thesis, 1996 ], derived originally for three-phase cylindrical fluidized beds, respectively, were modified for the prediction of U mf in a three-phase conical fluidized bed by accounting for the geometrical variation of the conical bed. It is found that the modified Song et al. model gave a better agreement than the modified Zhang et al. model in comparison with the current experimental data. However, the prediction of the modified Zhang et al. model is much improved when the parameter α, fractional gas holdup, was estimated using the equation from the Song et al. model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".